Please improve the process for hiding a geocache. Can not see all the unknown cache conflicts.

Recommended Posts

Hi I live in an area with a lot of unknown puzzle caches. I've tried now twice to hide a traditional cache and twice have been blocked by an unknown cache that does not show up on the "hide a cache" map. This is extremely frustrating as from my vantage point the area is wide one. There is a great high quality spot but then the reviewer rejects the placement. They can not even tell me anything other than proximity to the nearest unseen location no directional information.

I'm sorry to me this makes me not want to waste my time hiding anymore in my area as it is too difficult to find a spot as the tools available are incomplete and inadequate. The web site map to place a cache needs to be 100% accurate. In areas where there are only a few mystery caches this might not be such a big deal. I have sent multiple trips out to scout an area for that may work. Search for a placement site and then get the right cache container for the spot and finally place and write up a description.

The whole notion of keeping the puzzle cache locations secret should be stopped. Quit thinking about people cheating or gaming the system. There is no competition and no prizes to people that do this. So if people wish to cheat who are they hurting no one. Yet you are harming my aspect of the game by making me go through hoops to go around one type of a geocache hide to hide my cache. So many unknown caches are crazy puzzles that are so obtuse only a few cachers manage to solve them or require major handholding from the CO. Now I've solved a few but have around 1000 on my ignore list as frankly I don't want to see them on my map unless I've solved them (Another enhancement idea btw) as an icon on a map that is wrong does me no good when I'm driving around. Another possibility is an automated help system to come up with the puzzle coordinates. But I digress....

The map data for placing a cache really needs to be accurate or at least warn of potential conflicts.

Share this post

Link to post

This is pretty typical situation in most urban areas, and the solution isn't so much about knowing where the Puzzle/Multi Finals are, as just coming to the realization that there aren't too many places left in large populated areas. I would go so far to say that if you see an open spot in a park or open space in a densely populated area, it's a pretty safe bet that there's a hidden Final in there somewhere. If it were me, I would submit a Listing for a coordinate check, but not get my hopes up too much.

2

1

Share this post

Link to post

Before going to all the effort of setting up your container and the cache page, you should get a coordinates check from your reviewer. If you have some alternative locations you could pick from if your initial choice is blocked, add them all as additional waypoints. This page in the Help Centre explains the process.

1

Share this post

Link to post

There are 100s of nearby unknown caches and as I indicated are found by a small number of cachers. Besides unless you improve the solvability of these caches I'm going to ignore them. I was fine with that till I wanted to try and place a cache. Keystone's response to me is missing the point. You are prioritizing one aspect of the game over all others. People would continue hiding them, besides it is a small subset of hiders hiding these caches with the same group solving them. They have the trick to solve them so unless you improve the solvability how is this improving the overall experience of geocaching. Most folks I know put these on their ignore list.

I read stories about cache quality, how is a puzzle cache that is solved by 5 cachers and not found in over a year and a half good for geocaching. I simply want the ability to place a cache in an open area. I'd really like to hear from the GCHQ rather than folks saying yeah that's the way it has always been. I'm trying to help improve a thing that I get a lot of enjoyment out of. GCHQ obviously is also motivated to continually improve and innovate, else they risk folks giving up and quitting. Personally if the tools available don't improve I don't want to participate in the hiding aspect of the game.

Options:

1) Display the exact circles just like any other cache type.

- Figure out a mechanism to limit the time and access to the data.

- Don't worry about it if people want to "cheat" let them

- Personally know a cache is in the area does not help me to find the cache.

2) Display a random blob shape in a potential conflict area

- again if people want to "cheat" and search all locations in a blob let them

3) Like Waymarking & benchmarking move to a separate virtual system that allows all physical caches to be found by all and let the puzzle solving be the reward not finding a cache but by solving the puzzle.

4) Improve the solvability of unknown caches. Require Multiple automatic hints and assistance or even solution without having to message the CO

5) I'm sure there are other options as well

Though the #4 about messaging the CO I've worked on several puzzle caches that the CO is no longer active so that does not work in all cases. Then the puzzle just becomes unfound and unsolved. Taking up the space indefinitely. At least with traditional caches everyone has the opportunity to try for it and if problems exist DNF and then eventually archive.

Don't get me wrong I'm not anti-unknown. I just want to know they are out there to allow me to be able to place a cache. Not have to jump through extra hoops because the tools are inadequate. Too many cacher try to police things too much and are worried about so called "cheating". If people want to cheat let them. I want to find and place caches I don't want fear of cheating to be the reason this is difficult. I suggest worrying about cache quality, cache maintenance, and improving the overall experience.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Pot, kettle, black. You want to hide caches in an area that is apparently already pretty saturated, and you're willing to spoil multi-caches and mystery/puzzle caches (which you'd just as soon ignore) to make that easier.

8 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Though the #4 about messaging the CO

You misunderstood barefootjeff's post. Follow the link to the Help Center article that he provided and read the last section carefully. He wasn't talking about messaging the CO. He was talking about contacting a local volunteer reviewer. They're happy to help with coordinate checks.

2

Share this post

Link to post

I know how difficult and cumbersome it can be in our busy lives to click on a link and actually read a Help Center article, so here's the relevant portion of the Help Center article that barefootjeff tried to supply:

Quote

Ask a reviewer to check coordinates

If you’re still unsure if your location is available, ask a local reviewer to confirm.

Share this post

Link to post

Again just because this is the way it always has been does not mean an improvement can not be made.

At a minimum I should be able to get an instant response if I input a coordinate when using the online map page or even prior to submission. Why do I have to go through a reviewer?

I'd prefer to see the map be accurate. But some better feed back is truly required. This is not difficult to implement, the data is available to reviewers, add a mechanism to access the data while still maintaining the confidentiality is very simple and would take an experience coder a few minutes to implement.

1

Share this post

Link to post

I think it's really frustrating to try to hide my puzzle cache only to find out the area I need is taken up by all those traditionals. I think all puzzle caches should get priority over traditionals. Why not improve the system, so that anyone who wants to place a puzzle cache gets, for example, a 6 month time period for a certain area. After that, anyone who wants to submit a traditional may do so. I think this would be a fair system to accomodate both types of caches.

Share this post

Link to post

If I place a D5 puzzle, there is absolutely no reason the website should be configured to allow someone to 'Battleship' its final location under the pretense of placing a cache. That's is a big part of the reason the easily coded solution hasn't been made available to anyone other than the Reviewers. Your convenience in placing a cache is trumped by the prior placement of any physical stage of any cache. You will have to do what others have done since this hobby started almost 20 years ago - keep looking for a location that is the proper distance away from another cache stage, whether you see it or not.

Share this post

Link to post

Idea: treat hidden final locations separately. So puzzle finals still can't be within 161m of each other; traditionals still can't be within 161m of each other; but puzzle finals wouldn't affect traditionals, and vice versa.

Share this post

Link to post

Idea: treat hidden final locations separately. So puzzle finals still can't be within 161m of each other; traditionals still can't be within 161m of each other; but puzzle finals wouldn't affect traditionals, and vice versa

So my mystery final trading cache tucked in the multi-trunk of a banyan tree won't stop you from hanging a cache on that same tree and listing it as a traditional.

Sure, that will work ;-)

I use this example because it has already happened.

In the early days of the site, cache owners weren't asked for final coords ;-) really they weren't. And then they were, but only as text in a log, there was no waypoints tool, so nothing in the database to permit mapping of physical stages of caches. So, an old multi/mystery in Miami FL that ended with on a very large banyan tree in a park was spoiled by someone hiding a traditional on the same tree.

Share this post

Link to post

I feel your pain, but as a puzzle-setting, cache-placing CO I wouldn't want to see anything changed that would damage the integrity of my puzzles.

However, the chances are that the area you are concentrating on is dominated by a small number of COs. (I'm guilty of that where I live.) And it's likely that these COs will know the locations of most of the mysteries and multis in their area. If I was contacted, I certainly wouldn't give away the location of any caches, but I would try to help direct you to open spots.

Share this post

Link to post

I'd prefer to see the map be accurate. But some better feed back is truly required. This is not difficult to implement, the data is available to reviewers, add a mechanism to access the data while still maintaining the confidentiality is very simple and would take an experience coder a few minutes to implement.

Share this post

Link to post

Off the top of my head you could implement this many ways so this is just a thought experiment pros and cons would have to be thought out and weighed so to start the conversation.

- Ideally this would be implemented in the very first stage of "hide a geocache" You have two options here. Search Locations or Already know a location.

Possible ideas:

1) Improve the map to be more interactive. Have a propose site button. If hiding the data of unknown caches is important, which I do not agree with but let's say this is still the case. The proposed location could be checked against the same reviewer database. The website could give a warning of some type that says a hidden location may be nearby please confirm with reviewer prior to proceeding. Possibly the 0.1 mile bubble could be expanded to warn the placer of a proximity.

2) To avoid "cheating" Limit the number of checks in a small area.

3) show a randomized bubble on the map to indicate the presence of final caches in the area. To allow the person to confirm with the reviewer prior to proceeding.

- If after the initial and creating the web page phase. The second thing you do here is to input the lat/long. At this point a warning could be issued to either confer with a reviewer and/or specify a problem exists. Or flat out say yes/no. When you "confirm coordinates". Though that map does have issues that you can not zoom in and see details. But an indication of problems to come would be very nice.

- Finally prior to submission for review a simple check could query the database and say. Oh you have problems with placement. Rather than waiting days or a week for the reviewer to get back to you. An option to proceed could be given to get more details.

I'm sure other options could be created

To be honest in some areas just knowing of a conflict would allow me to "cheat" if I so chose to do so. In some areas frankly there are not that many hiding spaces. In one of my conflict areas I was able to deduce which cache I was in conflict with. I then tried to solve that puzzle, the checker was non-functional, the CO not active in three years, last finder a year and a half ago. I confirmed with the previous finder as to the coordinates. Which BTW are on private property behind a defunct fence and in an infestation of poison oak. After conferring with the previous finder the cache has be removed. Needless to say a needs maintenance log was filed and in two to three months this will be archived.

Share this post

Link to post

Back in about 2005 or so, someone hid a mystery and when someone solved the puzzle, he would add another puzzle (step), so that it could not be solved. The local cachers got mad and started placing caches to "battleship" the location of the hide, even giving them names such as B-5, etc. Eventually they narrowed down the location to the green of a local golf course, obviously a location the cache couldn't be, and the mystery was archived by the powers that be.

Share this post

Link to post

Again just because this is the way it always has been does not mean an improvement can not be made.

I understand your frustration totally. Just south of where I live are about 100 mystery caches, all with the same puzzle style and virtually all 35mm, damp, leaking micro caches hidden by the same person. The area may as well be saturated.

The problem is not, however, with Groundspeak's system. The problem is with an attitude to hiding caches which could, by some, be characterised as selfish. If we were aiming to improve cache quality through the way in which we approach hiding caches, we'd probably avoid doing that. There might be some of those puzzle caches there, but, I imagine, not quite so many.

Unfortunately I don't realistically see a way of solving the problem whilst an entitlement approach to hiding caches exists. If we could get everyone on the same page with regard to hiding quality caches (or, more realistically, somewhere close to the same page) then we might have a chance to reduce the sorts of frustration you feel. Realistically, however, I think you need to shrug and move on - perhaps keeping an eye on the area until the caches disappear.

Share this post

Link to post

I understand your frustration totally. Just south of where I live are about 100 mystery caches, all with the same puzzle style and virtually all 35mm, damp, leaking micro caches hidden by the same person. The area may as well be saturated.

The problem is not, however, with Groundspeak's system. The problem is with an attitude to hiding caches which could, by some, be characterised as selfish. If we were aiming to improve cache quality through the way in which we approach hiding caches, we'd probably avoid doing that. There might be some of those puzzle caches there, but, I imagine, not quite so many.

Unfortunately I don't realistically see a way of solving the problem whilst an entitlement approach to hiding caches exists. If we could get everyone on the same page with regard to hiding quality caches (or, more realistically, somewhere close to the same page) then we might have a chance to reduce the sorts of frustration you feel. Realistically, however, I think you need to shrug and move on - perhaps keeping an eye on the area until the caches disappear.

I see your points but respectfully disagree.

I believe hiding a cache is equally part of the game. Heck a couple of cachers in our area have around 1000 and spend more time hiding but still find a few here and there. How many times do you see a new cache pop up and it is from a cacher who went out last weekend and had fun with the family and decide to drop a cache, albeit a low quality cache just to get in on the action. I also agree the point that previous posters have made that harm should not be made to other aspects of the game and believe improvements can and should be made.

You do offer some suggestions that may help clear the map so to speak. Just ideas folks.

- Cache quality over time = is the cache maintained? Really need volunteers or automation better than what is in place today to watch the caches that exist today. This past week I filed three need maintenance logs on caches that were very obviously missing for months. With notes from previous finders saying things like I walk this path everyday and checked on this guy and it's gone missing. A couple of prolific cachers are seemingly taking a break from caching.They clearly used to maintain their caches but now are not. Bottom line should not take 3+ months to get a cache off the map. Encourage these folks to put their caches up for adoption.

- If no finds or maintenance in a specified time maybe the cache should time out or be on probation. Several caches used to be found very regularly. Then all of a sudden other for over a year. Then one cacher drops by nope missing DNF. But no response from the CO.

- Throw downs - I love the idea but hate it too. This is in a way cachers trying to help keep a thing going. the pattern I've seen falls into two camps. 1) CO does not maintain their caches either has too many to support or just simply relies on the community to help. 2) Old cache where the CO is no longer active. Now I love it when folks add a new log sheet or baggie, but I think GCHQ should discourage this practice more vociferously.

- Enable great local caches to be adopted when they are clearly abandoned. Two of the best caches I've ever done I found this summer are owned by folks no longer active. One a 4.5/5 earth cache up on Mt. Hood was truly amazing. The other a 5/4.5 challenge cache if done during the dry season is amazing and requires fording a little river. I digress the difficulty protects these in a way.

- If tracking of caches can not be done easily, encourage a better system of NM/NA logging. Seems people are deathly afraid to do these.Search for key words in logs "completely filled with water" "Container broken" then do a behind the scenes intervention with the CO if no response we know where this leads. Now this will tick folks off I'm sure. But the placement guidelines

clearly states maintenance.

- Maybe remove the NM request log after maintenance has been preformed. Penalize folks that do bogus maintenance runs or chastise cachers for flagging their caches as missing, I see this a lot well the "easy to find" D1 might be the issue.

- Have a finite limit to number of caches a single cacher can have. Have a mechanism to increase that and decrease that. Don't allow new caches to be placed while NM is requested elsewhere. There are responsible folks out there.

I still think there is a mechanism to improve the placement maps while preserving all the very good points people have about hidden waypoints and finals.

1

Share this post

Link to post

- Cache quality over time = is the cache maintained? Really need volunteers or automation better than what is in place today to watch the caches that exist today. This past week I filed three need maintenance logs on caches that were very obviously missing for months. With notes from previous finders saying things like I walk this path everyday and checked on this guy and it's gone missing. A couple of prolific cachers are seemingly taking a break from caching.They clearly used to maintain their caches but now are not. Bottom line should not take 3+ months to get a cache off the map. Encourage these folks to put their caches up for adoption.

Link for reference regarding the latest attempt at solving this particular issue:

I'll add that the overwhelming consensus appears to be a resistance within the community to automate this, with the majority of opinions appear to be that some human intervention is preferred.

30 minutes ago, MNTA said:

- Enable great local caches to be adopted when they are clearly abandoned. Two of the best caches I've ever done I found this summer are owned by folks no longer active. One a 4.5/5 earth cache up on Mt. Hood was truly amazing. The other a 5/4.5 challenge cache if done during the dry season is amazing and requires fording a little river. I digress the difficulty protects these in a way.

Many threads on this issue, and HQ has made it clear through the Moderators and in the Help Center that forced Adoptions is NOT an option. They used to do this sort of thing, and it was discontinued, as it implied that HQ was something more than a listing service, and held some responsibility for the Listing pages, and by extension, the cache placements. While HQ does own a small number of caches, they've made it clear that they don't want to held legally responsible for caches placed by other people, in any shape or form.

36 minutes ago, MNTA said:

- If tracking of caches can not be done easily, encourage a better system of NM/NA logging. Seems people are deathly afraid to do these.Search for key words in logs "completely filled with water" "Container broken" then do a behind the scenes intervention with the CO if no response we know where this leads. Now this will tick folks off I'm sure. But the placement guidelines

clearly states maintenance.

I personally don't think there's a problem with the current NM/NA system, but I understand your viewpoint, and see one change in the way people cache that has led to this point of view: smartphones. When I'm using my smartphone for caching, I rarely click on the link to see what previous logs say, unless I'm truly stumped. I think that leads to a large number DNF's with no apparent action from the Community to escalate the issue. As far as Key Word searches in logs, I think that would be a colossal waste of time and resources, and to be honest, people would find a way around such a mechanism, just like they're finding a way to game the Health Score algorithm.

42 minutes ago, MNTA said:

- Maybe remove the NM request log after maintenance has been preformed. Penalize folks that do bogus maintenance runs or chastise cachers for flagging their caches as missing, I see this a lot well the "easy to find" D1 might be the issue.

This aspect, if I'm interpreting you correctly, I would be in favor of. NM Attributes languish on the page well after the CO has done maintenance, but merely forgot to post a OM log to clear it or some good samaritan has stepped in to replace a damp log or some other minor maintenance issue. It would be nice if there was a time out feature, that after a certain number of Finds, the Attribute would turn off. If the issue still persisted, people could always reactivate it. This is a pretty well known issue in my opinion, and hasn't really been addressed.

47 minutes ago, MNTA said:

- Have a finite limit to number of caches a single cacher can have. Have a mechanism to increase that and decrease that. Don't allow new caches to be placed while NM is requested elsewhere. There are responsible folks out there.

There is no cookie cutter answer to this issue, but in some respect, it's kind of self limiting. Once a cache owner reaches a threshold of a large number of caches, you tend to see the maintenance aspects start to slide. When Volunteer Reviewers step in to address it, the CO either tries to address it, slowing down their placement volume, or they ignore it, resulting in the Archival of said Listings due to lack of action on the CO's part. I've known of a small number of instances, where Volunteer Reviewers have asked for maintenance on Disabled Listings before accepting new Listings for Publication, but I have not heard of the same being applied to the NM Attribute issue, which of course, can easily be gamed by the CO going through and posting a bunch of OM logs without actually doing anything of substance.

2

1

Share this post

Link to post

I was finishing a small, urban trail, only 14 caches and #14 was 507 feet from the final for a puzzle. Therefore, I understand the issue the OP has. BUT, as other's have posted, this comes with the "territory" of "Puzzle Caches." Strangely, I was able to use the reviewers data to locate the puzzle cache fairly quickly, which was a very GOOD cache container. So I moved my cache NW another 30 feet to make it within the guidelines. Since then, it has happened to me 3 more times, but those were much more difficult and I couldn't find the puzzle cache. Cache hiding is a First Come, First Serve and although it can be frustrating, it is the way of our game!

Share this post

Link to post

Sometimes there is no cache at all. Non published caches work same way as caches with hidden waypoints.

There was/is a cache, our reviewer told me which cache conflicted with mine and I verified there were found logs. But it was along a bike trail, along a river bed, and it conflicted with caches on the other side of the river and I didn't feel like making an "arc search" across the river.

Share this post

Link to post

Strangely, I was able to use the reviewers data to locate the puzzle cache fairly quickly, which was a very GOOD cache container. So I moved my cache NW another 30 feet to make it within the guidelines.

I think it's unfortunate that Reviewers give out this specific information for hidden waypoints. I too have been the recipient of spoilers from a reviewer, but did not take advantage of it.

Share this post

Link to post

The way it is now is once you solve a Mystery or Multi the (?) on the map turns into a smiley where the (?) was originally and not where the actual final location is even though you solved it.

I would like it if they could make an update where if you solved a Geocache with hidden final coordinates, then when you filter the map you can choose to see solved hidden final coordinates or it would default to the original coordinates. I think you should be able to choose from the default location and solved location because a CO may have GeoArt that you would like to still see after you solve them. Then you can switch it back to your solved hidden Geocaches and it would show you all of your solved hidden Geocaches incase you ever wanted to hide your own nearby.

The way it is now is once you solve a Mystery or Multi the (?) on the map turns into a smiley where the (?) was originally and not where the actual final location is even though you solved it.

I would like it if they could make an update where if you solved a Geocache with hidden final coordinates, then when you filter the map you can choose to see solved hidden final coordinates or it would default to the original coordinates. I think you should be able to choose from the default location and solved location because a CO may have GeoArt that you would like to still see after you solve them. Then you can switch it back to your solved hidden Geocaches and it would show you all of your solved hidden Geocaches incase you ever wanted to hide your own nearby.

The way it is now is once you solve a Mystery or Multi the (?) on the map turns into a smiley where the (?) was originally and not where the actual final location is even though you solved it.

I would like it if they could make an update where if you solved a Geocache with hidden final coordinates, then when you filter the map you can choose to see solved hidden final coordinates or it would default to the original coordinates. I think you should be able to choose from the default location and solved location because a CO may have GeoArt that you would like to still see after you solve them. Then you can switch it back to your solved hidden Geocaches and it would show you all of your solved hidden Geocaches incase you ever wanted to hide your own nearby.

Share this post

Link to post

The way it is now is once you solve a Mystery or Multi the (?) on the map turns into a smiley where the (?) was originally and not where the actual final location is even though you solved it.

I would like it if they could make an update where if you solved a Geocache with hidden final coordinates, then when you filter the map you can choose to see solved hidden final coordinates or it would default to the original coordinates. I think you should be able to choose from the default location and solved location because a CO may have GeoArt that you would like to still see after you solve them. Then you can switch it back to your solved hidden Geocaches and it would show you all of your solved hidden Geocaches incase you ever wanted to hide your own nearby.

Just to be clear, if you enter corrected coordinates for a mystery on the website (or through the App), these are shown on the map (with a blue puzzle piece icon) ... but only while the cache remains unfound. Once you log the find, the map reverts to the posted coords. The ability to toggle between posted and corrected coordinates would definitely be a good enhancement.

Share this post

Link to post

Again just because this is the way it always has been does not mean an improvement can not be made.

At a minimum I should be able to get an instant response if I input a coordinate when using the online map page or even prior to submission. Why do I have to go through a reviewer?

Yes, it has always been that way. You're also not the first to suggest an automated way to test if your coordinates conflict with a multi physical stage or puzzle final. It's something that others have asked about for years, and the responses are often the same so it's pretty clear to me that it isn't something that GS is considering doing.

If one can get an instant response after entering coordinates to be tested, they can enter another set of coordinates, then another until they've narrowed down the area where a puzzle final is hidden. They might have no intention on actually placing a cache but are using the mechanism your suggesting to avoid solving a puzzle cache. I agree with what others have suggested. If you've got 100s of puzzle caches in your area then perhaps that area is saturated enough that it really doesn't need more caches.

Share this post

Link to post

Yes, it has always been that way. You're also not the first to suggest an automated way to test if your coordinates conflict with a multi physical stage or puzzle final. It's something that others have asked about for years, and the responses are often the same so it's pretty clear to me that it isn't something that GS is considering doing.

If one can get an instant response after entering coordinates to be tested, they can enter another set of coordinates, then another until they've narrowed down the area where a puzzle final is hidden. They might have no intention on actually placing a cache but are using the mechanism your suggesting to avoid solving a puzzle cache. I agree with what others have suggested. If you've got 100s of puzzle caches in your area then perhaps that area is saturated enough that it really doesn't need more caches.

I recall someone who was a reviewer telling the story of a group of cachers who he figured were clearly battleshipping the final location of a particularly hide to solve puzzle cache. Iirc he ended up publishing a cache within the saturation distance of the puzzle final just to stop them figuring it out.

1

Share this post

Link to post

I recall someone who was a reviewer telling the story of a group of cachers who he figured were clearly battleshipping the final location of a particularly hide to solve puzzle cache. Iirc he ended up publishing a cache within the saturation distance of the puzzle final just to stop them figuring it out.

From another reply to MNTA in another thread...

On 7/5/2018 at 8:52 AM, Keystone said:

I was the reviewer for the earliest publicly known example of battleshipping. I did not want to be an accessory to cheating. So, when the people hiding caches within a two mile radius of an impossibly difficult puzzle cache scored a "hit" (their cache was less than 528 feet from the puzzle final), I published their cache anyways. That's the value of the human factor.*